APHC010164862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2517/2022 Between: 1. KAPPAGANTULA GOVIND, S/O. KAPPAGUNTALA PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WEDDING SHOP, R/O.FLAT NO.403, DFMRK, TOWERS, STREET NO.1. ADARSH NAGAR, OLD, DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. MR MOLLI ABHIJITH, S/O.M.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-26, POST OFFICE LANE, ADARSH NAGAR, OLD DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 53 0040 2. SMT MOLLI DEVI, W/O.M.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-26, - POST OFFICE LANE, ADARSH NAGAR, OLD DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 53 0040 3. MOLLI RAMA RAO, S/O.LATE M.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.3-26, POST OFFICE LANE, ADARSH NAGAR, OLD DAIRY FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 53 0040 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. ALA CHANDRASEKHAR YADAV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/De facto Complainant seeking to quash the Order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Ms.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri A.Chandra Sekhar Yadav. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, since the Petitioner is the owner of the said cash, the order of the Revisional Court to directing the Petitioner to return the same and to keep the same with the Court in the form of FDR, is not tenable. Learned counsel would further submit that the currency notes are negotiable and if the amount is kept in Bank under FDR, the same currency notes will not be issued by the Bank when the FDR is cancelled and the numbers of the said currency notes will not be tallied. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the said cash belongs to them and the same may be given to them for interim custody. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: 1 For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 3 Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the Order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam? Determination by the Court 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, based on the complaint lodged by the Petitioner/De facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.116 of 2021 has been registered for the offence under Section 380 IPC. Police, based on the confessional statement of the son of the Accused and having found prima facie case against the Respondent No.2/Accused, filed charge sheet against her for the offences under Sections 454, 380 read with 109 IPC or 411 IPC. During pendency of the said case, the Petitioner/De facto Complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.161 of 2021 before the trial Court under Section 457 Cr.P.C seeking interim custody of the seized cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and 4 Rs.12,84,000/- and other items and the learned trial Judge allowed the said petition vide Order dated 15.06.2021 with a direction to produce a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with single surety and also to produce the same before the Court at the time of giving evidence for marking the same. 8. 8. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.2/Accused, her husband and son filed Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2021 before the trial Court under Section 451 Cr.P.C to modify the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.161 of 2021 by giving the cash of Rs.2,00,000/- to the son of Accused and Rs.12,84,000/- to her husband for interim custody or in the alternative to direct the Police to purchase FDR for the entire amount in the name of the Court. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition vide Order dated 30.09.2021. 9. Impugning the said Order, Accused, her husband and son filed Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2021 before the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same was allowed vide Order dated 14.02.2022 directing the De facto Complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.12,84,000/- into the Court and on such deposit to take FDR for the said amount in the name of the trial Court and to keep the same with the Court till the decision of entitlement of the said amount. Having dissatisfied with the said Order, the present criminal petition has been filed by the Petitioner/De facto Complainant. 10. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that, based on the confession of the CCL, who is the son of Accused about the theft of cash of Rs.17.00 lakhs and other articles committed by him in the house of the De 5 facto Complainant and purchase of gold ornaments by the Accused with some amount, the case was registered against the Accused and seized the subject cash from their possession along with other articles under the cover of mediators report. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/De facto Complainant, if the said amount is kept in Bank under FDR, the same currency notes will not be issued by the Bank for making the same in evidence. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, since the Accused and her family members have not produced any document disclosing their entitlement of the seized cash and in view of the confession of the CCL, the same was stolen from the house of the Petitioner herein, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner/De facto Complainant is entitled to receive the said cash for interim custody. In such circumstances, the Order of the Revisional Judge warrants interference of this Court and the same needs to be modified. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of modifying the Order dated 14.02.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2021 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner/De facto Complainant is entitled to receive the entire amount of Rs.14,84,000/- (Rs.2,00,000 + Rs.12,84,000/-) for interim custody by furnishing bank guarantee to the said amount to the trial Court, instead of depositing the same under FDR. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:09.01.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2517 of 2022 Dt.09.01.2025 Dinesh